"Eric, please keep shining the spotlight on these cretins. We need to send these extremists scurrying."

Agree 100%. There was a reprint this week in the Sun-Times that was a vile screed against transgendered people. Some people I know (including those who work in a media), fully supportive of transgendered right as am I, argued the ST should be held to account for publishing such filth. I disagree: For starters, the best way to counter ideas/views you don't like is to fight them in public, not seek to push such ideas in the corner. Second, if you work to hide such ideas, you give them more power, which is an inefficient way of fighting what amounts to a cultural/political 'war.' (In war, it usually helps to draw out your enemy.)

Sorry for being off-topic, but I firmly believe that what Mike M says above is the best way for all involved when fighting over policy, cultural and political issues.

That said, this is ironic, thought I doubt 'Paul Grens' gets the irony:

And that he stated publicly yesterday that he has no intention of trying to overturn the SSM bill... Though he does stand by his statement that it should've been passed through a referendum instead of legislative action...

Where does Paul Grens get his information from that Rauner would work to overturn SSM, I wonder... It's counter to every public statement that he has made...

It's not a dumb point by Lexi. Why should we focus solely on the "inequality" in the USA when worldwide standards of living are literally in the crapper...do you know that over 600 million people in India alone must urinate and defecate outside in the open, along with the animals, as only half the country has access to toilets?

"Why should we focus solely on the "inequality" in the USA when worldwide standards of living are literally in the crapper"

Because the same people who push back against focusing on inequality in the USA are the same people who would push back against any global view. SOCIALISM!! COMMUNISM!! AGENDA 21!! UN!!! In any case, there is great value, or can be great value, by starting at home and letting things move from there.

"do you know that over 600 million people in India alone must urinate and defecate outside in the open, along with the animals, as only half the country has access to toilets?"

That why I think humankind will soon--within a few generations--have to, at least, significantly tweak our present capitalism-dominated economics with something that better reflects the 21st Century rather than the previous two or three centuries.

@Brian: You'll find that many of the people who call for large tax rate increases on "the wealthy" in the United States would vehemently oppose large tax increases on their own income to reduce worldwide inequality, as their newest hero Thomas Pikety endorses.

@Vise: My point is that many of those who protest against income inequality only do so in the context of the United States. I'll go out on a limb and say that "Pinker" has no interest in sending a significant portion of his/her income overseas to help those who are truly needy.

--Well, we know that Rauner's obfuscation strategy has fooled at least one person.

ZORN REPLY -- And, of course, you can't just "sign" a referendum. An advisory ref. on this matter would then have to be submitted to the legislature in the form of a bill that would then have to pass both houses, and that just ain't gonna happen. Not the way current polls and the balance of power in the legislature are leaning.
Pop!

Eric with yet another irresponsible, context-less provocation just to spread the spector of negativity on a candidate. What's next, a couple of satirical cartoons of Rauner eating babies and wearing a jackboot kicking minorities and elderly?

This is plain and simply lazy journalism. And sure enough, the knuckledraggers are playing right into this.

Regardless of who people want to support, this is indefensible and disrespectful behavior - and I mean to we as voters.

"My point is that many of those who protest against income inequality only do so in the context of the United States. I'll go out on a limb and say that "Pinker" has no interest in sending a significant portion of his/her income overseas to help those who are truly needy. "

Because you care so much, right?

I have no problem with doing it in the context of the USA. So what? Change starts as home, and politics and political change is hard enough in one's city or state, or country--much less globally.

Do you have any stronger point on this, or are you simply pointing out where you think others fall short?

@Vise: Your attitude reinforces my belief that many liberals believe in social welfare, so long as someone else is paying for it. You are correct, that's not much of a point to be making. Dog bites man.

I agree with your points #1 through #3 (Rauner as next Gov, he will not repeal SSM and he will not "wage war" on women and children), but I have to respectfully disagree with point #4 ("He will do a good job getting Illinois back on track")...

Rauner won't be able to do anything to improve our state's well-being because he will be handcuffed in what he can do legislatively... Madigan is in charge and will only bring forth legislation that he wants to be passed; there is no way MJM allows any of Rauner's proposed legislation (whatever that turns out to be ;-) to be brought to the floor for a vote.

The only power a Governor Rauner will have is the power of the veto, but that does nothing to bring about any change to the system as it can only prevent new legislation from being enacted, and that's only if the G.A. doesn't override his veto... He won't be able to get anything he wants enacted and I fear it will be more of the same for Illinois, but with legislative gridlock that mirrors that halls of the U.S. Congress...

It really matters very little who is Governor as long as Madigan remains in power...

I noted that the message posted by Mr. Grens doesn't actually say which abomination he's referring to, and there are two potential referendums (potentially) on the ballot this fall. I'm not sure I'd describe either of them as an abomination.

My tolerance for the willfully ignorant, for would-be bullies, for people who jab more often than offering their own ideas, and for people whose MO is to put digital words into other posters' digital mouths is pretty low.

You state, "Are you suggesting that every blog post should be an example of investigative perfection?"

This isn't about criticizing technical inaccuracies, my comment is about Eric Zorn, once a pretty solid journalist who used to put tremendous amounts of research and forethought into articles, now resorting to simply taking an extremist anonymous blog poster's simplistic and ignorant comment on his blog to try to imply that that type of mentality is representative of a particular candidate; in this case Bruce Rauner. I'm not endorsing Rauner in my position, but am taking tremendous exception to Eric Zorn resorting to the lowest form of "journalism" by trying to put an extremist's face on a candidate just to color people's opinions.

And people responded just as Eric wanted, with similarly lazy follow up.

To Wendy, I am not familiar with the person to whose link you cited, but I presume they resorted to similar tactics as Mr. Zorn. Thanks for pointing them out as well.

At some point, we voters have to start making independent and individual assessments of who we elect to office, not just buying instantly into someone's agenda; whether you support Democrat or Republican. There is nothing written that says you have to vote along party lines.

" I'm not endorsing Rauner in my position, but am taking tremendous exception to Eric Zorn resorting to the lowest form of "journalism" by trying to put an extremist's face on a candidate just to color people's opinions. "

But it's a mere blog post, one among many. Some posts are candy, some are meat. I don't think you appreciate the difference.

"we voters have to start making independent and individual assessments of who we elect to office, not just buying instantly into someone's agenda;"

How do we voters make that assessment when the candidate gives us NOTHING to assess? Rauner refuses to state his social views, his economic plans, his ideas on budget cuts or anything else. What exactly do you expect reporters and columnists to write about? All we're left with is the laughter and scorn Rauner exhibits when questioned, plus his non-stop criticism of his opponent's efforts to dig the state out of this mess, while offering nothing on how he'll "Shake up Springfield" until it's fixed. I'm not a Quinn fan, but at least we know what he's about. You want the media to show Rauner respect? Then he'd better start telling all of us why he deserves it, why he deserves to be governor of this state.

Wendy, don't go into auto-mode with the Rauner rants. I'm not endorsing Rauner as I too don't know what he will do to try turn things around. But, I also don't know what any specific knocks on him are. So, he's not in favor of the minimum wage; that's all I know. That's a throwaway manufactured issue.

But, can you tell me what Quinn or Madigan or Cullerton are going to do in the next four years? I have an idea. There's no ideological positions on either side, just power mongering.

To tell you the truth, we were better off when Blago was in power, simply because he hated, and was hated, by the Madigan army and even the media spent effort picking him apart.

I almost think a GOP governor would be better for Illinois because we'd see the news media doing its job of investigating politicians instead of all the puffery people like Mr. Zorn conduct in adhering ot all things Democrat. I'm a national Democrat, but in Illinois, there is no such thing; just teams and employees.

We certainly aren't going to learn anything by having Eric reprint some extremist's blog post.

To be technical, that isn't very specific at all, Bruce. Speaking of empty platitudes, what are his empty platitudes? Are you looking for a 50 page magna carta or a political logarithm? What non-incumbant ever has a plan that's specific enough for the position?

President Obama himself not only had no plans when he ran for US Senator, he had little to no experience. Yet, he turned out to be a pretty good Senator for Illinois.

Criticize away at Rauner, I wouldn't know how to defend him if I wanted to, but my point is that people are so stubborn in not wanting to let the "other side" win, that they are willing to let an abject failure of a leadership in our state continue to stay in power and grow stronger no matter what it does to our state.

Bruce, would you really prefer to keep the three-headed monster and all their progeny continue decimating our state instead of voting in an unknown entity who will most likely be ineffective at advancing any agenda, but will have an opportunity to at least break up the monopoly and call BS on what's going on in the State? Tell you what, I would. But, if winning is more important to you than results, vote for governor bobble head again and let Madigan and his family sail off into the sunset.

Ummm, anything would do at this point... Anything more than "I'm gonna focus on the economy and education"... Check out his website; he's got no plan, he just addresses problems and says they need to be fixed... Well, we already knew that!...

As stated so well by another pundit...

"So, to sum up, Rauner has no social agenda, except for that much-ballyhooed endorsement by a discredited and now defunct LGBT tea party group. He says he has an economics agenda, but won’t expand on his tiny outline. He says he wants to cut taxes, but won’t say how he’ll deal with the deficit. He says he’ll improve schools, but won’t say how he’ll pay for it, especially with those tax cuts of his. And he apparently thinks he’s gonna win by not hanging out on farms.

Got it."

Thank you Rich Miller ;-)

Oh, and here's the article since you are apparently unaware of the blog...

"I almost think a GOP governor would be better for Illinois because we'd see the news media doing its job of investigating politicians instead of all the puffery people like Mr. Zorn conduct in adhering ot all things Democrat."

You may want to go back and reread my earlier posts... you seem to have some misconceptions...

And "three-headed monster", huh? You really believe that Quinn is part of the real power in Springfield? Or that he's "linked" to Madigan? The Governor has very little effective power in this state, so install whomever you desire... we're all screwed as long as the Velvet Hammer runs things and maintains his machine...

Oh, and just curious, you say, "Yet, he turned out to be a pretty good Senator for Illinois."

What did he do, other than run for President? How was he "pretty good"? Any example will do...

Evan may not have "endorsed" Old Rauner or may not want to "defend" him, but the statements once again make Evan quite the apologist for Old Rauner. Old Rauner's campaign is an empty vessel, particularly when it comes to pensions, where the "failure of Democratic leadership" actually passed a pension reform bill now before the Illinois courts. So let's not kid ourselves that the criticisms of Old Rauner's platitudes lack specifics because there are specifics in spades and we've been over them here before, many times now.

Bruce, I understand already your position that Rauner has no firm positions. I can't disagree. However, you haven't answered the simple question. Here, real simple. Do you think Illinois will be better off with the Quinn/ Madigan (x2)/ Cullerton leadership or the Rauner/ Madigan (x2)/ Cullerton leadership? For arguments sake, let's agree that Rauner has ZERO plan.

I also don't necessarily believe that Quinn is in cahoots with Madigan, but having Quinn in the governor's seat makes things much easier for Madigan and Co.

With regard to the actual topic of this post, the article that Wendy linked to at 10:29 notes that "after lawmakers approved same-sex marriage bill, Rauner said he would veto the bill if he were governor." The ship has sailed, now, of course, but, if he'd been governor, it evidently would have been sent back to dry dock. That might not count as a "specific knock" on him to you, but it matters to lots of voters.

So, lexi, did a Google search on my handle and I guess I see what you are doing. Two quick points:

1. Uh, no. Another swing and miss. Sorry. Nice try, though. It seems more than a few people use this handle. Never knew that until now, so I guess you provided some value.
2. Do you intend to find out my real identity and--like that stalker of MCN a few weeks ago--put all my info online? What exactly is your goal here?

You'll notice fairly quickly that he's not so "in cahoots" with Madigan and the G.A.

And just as a refresher, an amendatory veto has to go back to the G.A. to be voted on as amended, and MJM has a de facto policy of not bringing these amendatory vetoes up for a vote... He just lets them wither and die instead of handing any power at all to the executive branch...

Meanwhile, the ONLY piece of real policy that we know about Rauner is that he would've vetoed SSM, which I happen to disagree with 100%... So, with that being ALL I have to go on for Rauner, my answer to your query would be that I would prefer to stick with Quinn, although I do realize and freely admit that that doesn't do much to help our state either...

But what I'd really prefer is two qualified candidates that could effectively explain their plans for fixing our myriad problems... Well, that and and a way to remove Mike Madigan from a position of leadership ;-)

Jakash, don't equate my desire to rid our state of one of the three heads of this state as a leap into being against gay marriage. I am in fact a proponent of it. Interesting also that you cite to that article purporting to state that Rauner is against gay marriage, when all it says is that he waffles on it, like a good politican. What's more interesting, is that the article you cite to is largely critical of Quinn and accuses him of pushing a social agenda to generate populist support, just to distract voters away from his horrific legislative and administrative failings.

On that note, where was Quinn in his first term in supporting gay marriage? Real brave, he waited until almost half the country either voted in favor of it or had positive judicial rulings allowing its passage.

I'm still befuddled at the conscious disregard for Quinn's failings by the commenters in this blog.

Bruce, it's good to hear that you'd at least like to remove Madigan. But, I still feel that Quinn - although not a corrupt person - is just grease for the machine.

I read that article and I don't find anywhere that says Rauner is against SSM or that he'd veto the bill. The article Wendy linked to said he would adhere to a voter referendum. I have a feeling he is waffling on that issue and came out with a non-commital answer. Maybe he said somewhere else he would have vetoed it, in which case he's just like every other politician on social issues. For crying out loud, Al Gore used to be Pro-Life until he needed votes.

As for Rauner, he has said many times that SSM should only be passed by referendum, and said when the GA passed the bill that he would veto it (not because he's against it, but on the premise that it should only be passed through a referendum, not "shoved down people's throats" by the legislature). He's not really "waffling", he's simply refusing to take any position at all on it...

Not a hard thing to find if you google it, but I don't care enough to search from my phone right now... Sorry...

I'm pretty sure that most of the commenters on this blog are aware of Gov. Quinn's shortcomings. A better opponent might well have garnered votes even among the lefty CoS regulars. Old Rauner will probably get a few of our votes, as it is. (Tip of the hat to GJO'L, though his evidently won't be one of the votes!) The strongest argument I've seen you make for Rauner is that he's not Quinn. That is unpersuasive to me, sorry. Maybe Quinn isn't brave. But if you read the quote I posted and the article, both show that Rauner said he would have vetoed the SSM bill. Brave or not, Quinn signed it. You asked for a "specific knock" on Rauner. There's one, that's all. Regardless of what came before, he's still "waffling" on SSM, Quinn is quite supportive.

"A better opponent might well have garnered votes even among the lefty CoS regulars"

Prior to the GOP primary, many of the COS lefties were saying they would vote against Quinn as long as a GOP "Neanderthral" was not elected in the primary. That is someone that was socially liberal - in favor of gay marriage, pro-choice, etc.... Well, out of the 4 candidates, they got their wish.

We have seen over 5 years that Quinn is an economic disaster. As GregJ put it a little while ago, time to roll the dice with someone else. And as BruceL summed it up above: "The only power a Governor Rauner will have is the power of the veto" That will slow down the train wreck.

I, like most of you, are anxious to hear what Rauner's proposals are. But the election is still 5 months away!

As of right now, I'm wiling to roll the dice with Rauner and see if Illinois can do better than Snake Eyes Quinn

ZORN REPLY -- What laws has Quinn signed that you wish he'd vetoed. And if you say the tax hike, please give us some idea how you would have closed the budget gap.. And no, a simple "cut spending" is not an answer.

So, Jakash, you and Bruce are proof positive that a single, social non-fiscal issue can sway a significant amount of voters. Our state is at the edge and we're in the lowest levels in most key statistics, yet the SSM vote seems to be the most persuasive factor in many people's vote. Quinn's campaign nailed that one. So, because he simply facilitated reason and jumped on the logic bandwagon, the entire state will suffer four more years of sinking.

Here's another fact about me, my wife is due a fat state pension someday so we'll benefit personally. Unfortunately, many of my neighbors will be supporting us into our golden years. I'd give a good portion of that away in exchange for a better future for our state.

If I had even a shred of evidence, or even an inkling, that Rauner would fix the economic problems we face I could support that, but a plan that is (as we're told) based on somehow spending more on education while reducing revenue by cutting taxes doesn't appear a better solution... If he explained how he plans to pull off that magic trick I'd listen, but he seems unwilling and/ or unable to do so, therefore I'll base my decision on the limited known vs the unlimited unknown of Rauner...

And yes, it could change as we do have five months until election day, but he's also been campaigning for almost a year and a half and still isn't able to disclose any of this info... And I'm not holding my breath...

"Well, out of the 4 candidates, they got their wish." And I wouldn't be surprised if some of the folks who said that will vote for Old Rauner, even if it's not clear whether he's *actually* socially liberal or if that's part of his TV act, like the folksy image. I'm certainly not surprised that you are willing to roll the dice, but, in some of the comments I've seen, Greg hasn't seemed quite as sure. Perhaps I've missed some of his recent remarks.

Evan Collier,

"So, Jakash, you and Bruce are proof positive that a single, social non-fiscal issue can sway a significant amount of voters." Uh, no, we demonstrate that if a candidate is only going to take a clear stand on one issue, and he's wrong on that, in our opinions, we may not be as likely to give him the benefit of the doubt when he says "trust me" on the other ones.

I certainly agree that there's a long time until the election, though, so who knows?

Jakash, you kind of burned your support of Quinn with your own statement, that you don't give the benefit of the doubt to a candidate who takes a clear stand on an issue and then is wrong on it. Quinn has done that multiple times, temporary income tax hike, pension reform, and school reform; and each time he either backpeddled, failed, or out and out was disingenous about it.

The man is not fit to run a state, he has no fiscal experience, has no clout within his own party, and has no clear vision for how to move forward; this after being in the office for 6 years. I'll take my chances on a businessman with no political history, allies, or need to become rich out of the office.

I've already agreed that Quinn has shortcomings. I'm not his campaign manager, nor am I trying to persuade you to vote for him. To review and conclude my participation in this thread: This post was not about Quinn. It was not about the economy. It alluded to Rauner and his waffling on gay marriage. You said, at 3:19 yesterday, "I also don't know what any specific knocks on him are." I just thought I'd point out the "specific knock" that is relevant to this post. You're welcome to make of it what you will. Sheesh!

It appears hatred of Quinn, because of course the decades long deterioration of Illinois is his responsibility, would compel some to vote for Bozo the Clown were he the opponent. Which isn't too far from what Raune is, fake and condescending laughter included.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.